Blog Traffic

December 12, 2012

Fourth Circuit affirms (stat-max) five year sentence for dog-fighting when guideline range at 0-6 months

In part because so very few sentences get reversed (or even seriously engaged) under modern reasonableness review, I rarely blog on rulings concerning the post-Booker standards of appellate review. But both the facts and the ruling today by a Fourth Circuit panel in US v. Hargrove, No. 11-4818 (4th Cir. Dec. 12, 2012)(available here), struck me as blog-worthy. Thes snippets highlights why:

The government describes Hargrove as being a "legend" in
the dogfighting community. By Hargrove’s own admission,
he has been involved in dogfighting activity for over four decades, and at one time he had approximately 250 fighting dogs
on his property. Information in the record shows that offspring from one of Hargrove’s fighting dogs, Midnight Cowboy, sold for large sums of money across the country because
of its aggressiveness and propensity for fighting. Hargrove
advertised his dogs in various dogfighting-related publications, and he is famous in the dogfighting industry for his
dogfighting, his breeding activities, his training regimen, and
his ability to produce aggressive fighting dogs. His prior criminal history includes a 1983 Georgia felony dogfighting conviction, a 1993 North Carolina animal fighting misdemeanor
conviction, and a 2001 North Carolina animal cruelty misdemeanor conviction.....

The district court announced that it was prepared to sentence Hargrove both under the guidelines and with an upward
departure and upward variance. The court expressed its dissatisfaction with the "irrationality" of the dogfighting guideline
provision, noting with respect to the guideline calculation of
0-6 months that Hargrove advocated: "I would say that other
than the criminal dog fighters in America, every other person
in America would be shocked beyond belief that you could do
what [Hargrove] did and come out with a federal sentence of
zero to six months. . . . No one could defend that. No judges.
No legislators. No president." J.A. 135.

The court then heard from Hargrove’s counsel, who
emphasized that Hargrove was a highly decorated military
veteran who had been changed by his experience in Vietnam.
Counsel also noted that in cases cited by the government
involving similar activities, the defendants received imprison-
ment sentences of between 12 and 24 months....

The court then announced that its guidelines calculations
led to a sentencing range of 41-51 months, and it stated that
it would sentence Hargrove to 51 months if imposing sentence under that range. However, the court further stated that
an upward departure and an upward variance to 60 months
were appropriate....

In short, the court made abundantly clear that even if Har-
grove’s sentencing guideline range was 0-6 months, it
believed a 60-month sentence was necessary to accomplish
the objectives of sentencing. Given the record before us, we
cannot conclude that the court’s exercise of its sentencing discretion in imposing a 60-month sentence is unreasonable.